- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 13:26:43 -0800
- To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
- Cc: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@google.com>, Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com> wrote: > Thanks to all for chiming in with many perspectives! Given the imminent > timing line let's make the call on this > topic and move forward: NavigationTiming will use window.performance object, > which itself is replaceable. > Here are the points we've covered so far to reach this decision: > - There is interest to keep the interface concise, which has its own > advantage in the long run. > - Most of us agree that we should avoid the potential conflicts with > existing pages. Having window.performance replaceable > address that. > - Probably a common practice, having window.performance replaceable could > still confuse some. But so far there > doesn't seem to be any objection to that. > - There is some risk allowing developers to replace window.performance. > But considering most objects/functions > are replaceable in ECMA scripts, protecting window.performance alone > could be a half-way solution to integrity > of the collected. So best intentions are assumed. > - Less of an argument... but this is the current implementation adopted by > IE and Chrome. I'm still not understanding this. As far as I can see only the last point, which you are saying is "less of an argument", seems to be an argument for using the name "performance". I'll point out, yet again, that my question of why not using "pagePerformance" or "performanceMetrics", still remains unanswered. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 21:29:47 UTC